Jump to content


REVERSE BACK TO V1.9


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1429 replies to this topic

Poll: REVERSE TO V1.9 (949 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 10 battles in order to participate this poll.

You like the new V2.0 ?

  1. I want the old V1.9 BACK ASAP (654 votes [68.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.91%

  2. I'm in love with V2.0 KEEP IT (295 votes [31.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.09%

Vote Hide poll

Franco_Scala #761 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:52 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

All right then Jakub, as a one time special event, let's wrestle in your tar pit.

 

Item 1

 

'Bored, for fun.

It's really funny to describe a way of work of a default WoWP 2.0 fanboy only to watch that in work on next page.'

 

That you are bored or that you find anything funny doesn't stop your actions, or those of others, from being a wretched waste of time and space that potentially curtails the positive efforts of others. That you are bored and enjoy it does not preclude you from being a troll with a chip on your shoulder. That it doesn't preclude you from such does not mean that you should necessarily be described as such. Your statutory rights are not affected. That I raise the possibility of you possibly being describable as a troll with a chip on your shoulder who's actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry-heaving does not mean that I am directly accusing you of such.

 

Furthermore, I recognize that fundamental rights to freedom of speech mean that you are within your rights to continue in your behaviour which may or may not be construed and described as being that of a troll with a chip on it's shoulder who's actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry-heaving. Having fun yet Jakub?

 

Item 2

 

'Unfortunately, discussion with WoWP 2.0 fanboys never reached that "intelligence" level.'

 

​I accept that possibility. To further your case, could you please define the term 'fanboy' within the appropriate context and clearly list, with examples, which particular forum users have failed, in your eyes, to reach that ' ''intelligence'' level'. Can you please describe and define your methodology for measuring intelligence and your methodology for comparitive rankings. Thankyou for your time and input.

 

Item 3

 

​'As you can see above, there are still only clichés.'

 

​I have seen some clichés, that is a fair point. The presence of some clichés does not mean that all statements of defence are clichés however. Not all defensive statements are clichés, and not all clichés are defensive statements, though some defensive statements are clichés. I appreciate your astute observations though can't condone gross generalizations. What's your favourite colour Jakub? I quite like orange, personally.

 

Item 4

 

​'None 2.0 flaws I stated before have been addressed, and "many fields" that 2.0 is better become whole 2 points.'

 

​It does ostensibly appear that some forum members have failed to adequately address some of the flaws in 2.0 that you have raised. I do not have much in the way of opinion on fields; I am neither an agrarian or a database entry clerk. If people have made two or more points, those points should be addressed on their merits, not their quantity. For example, one does not need a multitude of reasons to explain why being shot in the face with a shotgun can have negative repercussions for one's physical wellbeing. Wow, this is fun isn't it Jakub. Are you having fun?

 

Item 5

 

'Unfortunately one - balanced planes - is bullshit, because, as I stated previously, there are still OP and UP planes, only different.'

 

​Yes, some planes will perform better than others. Can you provide substantive numerical data from the game files and game statistics showing that the effect of over/under powered planes is not lesser in 2.0 than it was in 1.9? Saying that something is bullshit is not a statement of fact unless supported by facts, it's an opinion. You have countered one person's opinion with your own contrary opinion until you have evidence to state otherwise. You realize this is not the behaviour of an intelligent, rational individual, yes?

 

Item 6

 

'Even more unfortunately - 2nd point is valid only as long, as WoWP keeps enough players to fuel queue. As soon as number of players hits levels of 1.9, it will be void.'

 

Which second point? I may have missed it. Apologies if that is my lack of comprehension.

 

Item 7

 

'So you see, it's like a game, where I know what pawns will do few moves forward.'

 

​You realize that such statements are usually made by narcissists, schizoids and sociopaths? Or trolls with a chip on their shoulder whose actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry heaving. It is possible that you embody a combination of all these features and characteristics, but it would be improper to make such accusations without proper evidence from a psychological evaluation.

 

​Item 8

 

'Note that I don't discuss with anybody, who simply says that likes 2.0.

I discuss with anybody, who says that 2.0 is a good game. Because it isn't, and there are strong proofs for that.'

 

You are currently engaging in a long, brow-beating intellectual façade of a debate with me, when I have neither stated whether 2.0 is good or not. This statement is thus patently false. It's almost as if you're a troll with a chip on their shoulder who make knee jerk responses without fully understanding the long term consequences or the general upshot for their case whilst holding publically announced delusions of intellectual superiority. 2.0 may/may not be objectively worse than 1.9; I'm partly here to understand if and why that is the case.

 

Item 9

 

'And I'm stating facts over and over.'

 

​Sometimes you state facts, sometimes you make patently false claims as exhibited above. You also appear to have jumped to the conclusion that I was directly addressing you. I wasn't then, but I am now. Are you having fun Jakub? Do you like lasagne? I love lasagne.

 

​Item 10

 

'WG has a big problem now.

They effectively stopped work on 1.9.

Then forcibly, against community voices (after all it's WG game) introduced 2.0, and 2.0 turns out to be at least as bad, as 1.9. Most probably will be worse.'

 

This was a statement in response to my statement that you quoted; 'WG don't need to roll anything back just because 'you don't like it'; you can't make a case for trivialities of taste.'

 

My statement still stands valid till proven otherwise as your response to the quoted material was non-sequitur: a response that does not address the prior issue and is at best a tangent. It is not appropriate to quote somebody and call them out then make non-sequiturs. Your statement, tangential though it may be, may or may not be correct. I'm not in a position to assert otherwise with certainty.

 

Item 11

 

'Somehow suddenly nobody notices http://forum.worldof...000#entry550000'

 

This is also a non-sequitur to what you quoted from me: 'You can however make substantive arguments for why a certain feature adds or detracts from the quality of the game and it's overall playability and engagement with the audience.'

 

One has little, nay nothing, to do with the other, and, once again, I think you may have made an incorrect assumption that I was directly targeting you. It may or may not be the case that people are ignoring that forum entry, though I'm not sure what your point is. Would you care to explain why you referenced that material in particular for the benefit of your intellectually inferior audience. Unlike you, we have made no claims about being able to see all the future moves of the pawns in this game so you need to make it clear for us pawns.

 

​Item 12

 

'More or less I can, and you can also.

 

There is a concept of corridor tests, and if you want to see such, watch:'

 

No, you can't. Corridor testing is very different to copy/pasting a YouTube video into a forum thread. Furthemore, corridor testing is not an exit survey, it is an uncontrolled measure using a small, usually random, sample. This may indicate to a statistician where they might need to investigate further, but it is a precedent for further investigation, not a proof of anything. I spent seven years in academia studying PPE and performing and contributing to econometric research; you're not going to pull that crap with me Jakub.

 

Item 13

 

'Is a bias stating that WoWP seems to be losing 100 players daily? Take a hall of fame and count for yourself. Anybody can.

 

If my work with numbers would have some errors, I'm pretty sure somebody would point them out. I'm not very liked here, so every opportunity is good.

Instead of that there are only cliches and slogans.'

 

It is not a bias stating that WoWP seems to be losing 100 players daily if the hall of fame acts as a reliable source of evidence in testimony to that fact. In that you are correct Jakub, have a dog treat, you earned it (oh how fun it is to act intellectually superior to others! That sure told you eh! I'm so great). Bias comes into play when they are projected into casual assumptions about what those numbers mean or assumptions of knowing why those 100 players are leaving each day. Unless proven otherwise, it might well be that those people would have got bored of the game regardless of whether it was 1.9 or 2.0 and just happened to try it out because of the publicity 2.0 received. It might be because they all died from being hit in the head by flying bananas. Don't make lofty claims about handling facts when you don't have them to work with, it's embarrassing. Sure, some of the others here may not be intellectual titans, but that doesn't preclude you from making false statements.

 

 

 

Fun talking to you Jakub. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Franco_Scala, 14 January 2018 - 01:32 AM.


lokid_1 #762 Posted 14 January 2018 - 04:15 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

"in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!! "

 

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 



Franco_Scala #763 Posted 14 January 2018 - 05:00 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 04:15 AM, said:

"in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!! "

 

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 

 

Hey lokid_1 :)

 

I understand your frustrations. However, may I ask if such occurrences are more or less frequent than instances in which you shoot down that many aircraft and win? All the best to you.



lokid_1 #764 Posted 14 January 2018 - 05:58 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View PostFranco_Scala, on 14 January 2018 - 06:00 AM, said:

 

Hey lokid_1 :)

 

I understand your frustrations. However, may I ask if such occurrences are more or less frequent than instances in which you shoot down that many aircraft and win? All the best to you.

 

You missed the point bro. Pierre Closterman was top French ACE during WWII with 33 victories during whole war.

 

36 kills in one battle? And you lose the game because countless numbers of red planes pops up all around you and you can not move to another sector to capture it, as YOU HAVE TO CAPTURE IT TO WIN THE GAME!

 

Where is the FOCUS, where is the TACTICS?

 

This is SPACE INVADERS type of game now.



Franco_Scala #765 Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:02 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 05:58 AM, said:

 

You missed the point bro. Pierre Closterman was top French ACE during WWII with 33 victories during whole war.

 

36 kills in one battle? And you lose the game because countless numbers of red planes pops up all around you and you can not move to another sector to capture it, as YOU HAVE TO CAPTURE IT TO WIN THE GAME!

 

Where is the FOCUS, where is the TACTICS?

 

This is SPACE INVADERS type of game now.

 

​Hello Lokid_1

 

I didn't miss the point, you didn't make it. You originally raised it as an issue of balance.

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 

​However, if that is your point, I can understand why 2.0 is frustrating for you in comparison to 1.9; 2.0 certainly does haven arcade feel to it which seems to divide opinion. Please don't SHOUT at me as if I'm an idiot in your way.

 

​Thanks and best wishes to you.

 

 


Edited by Franco_Scala, 14 January 2018 - 06:03 AM.


waxx25 #766 Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:12 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1834 battles
  • 156
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 04:15 AM, said:

"in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!! "

 

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 

 

I faced you before lokid. I remembered you from the forums at the time. You for some reason wanted me and only me, i killed you 4 times wondering why you lost on purpose. Do try to remember that focusing on the win is better than focusing on other players. BECAUSE, believe it or not, the number of kills you get is meaningless if you did not play for the win. I can easily get into my Repu, go to an airfield, and shut it down for 20+kills and 0 deaths.......and lose every single last game. It is not only about the amount of kills you get its what you kill and when (where) you kill it that counts. The motivation comes in when you realize that you CAN influence the game strongly by playing it how it's meant to be played. The tactics of 1.9 are gone for carrying the win. New combo can be used in flights. You would be amazed what a high-tier GAA and a Multi-role can do now. Killing large numbers of bots is fun and all but its not how you win.

Franco_Scala #767 Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:17 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View Postwaxx25, on 14 January 2018 - 06:12 AM, said:

 

I faced you before lokid. I remembered you from the forums at the time. You for some reason wanted me and only me, i killed you 4 times wondering why you lost on purpose. Do try to remember that focusing on the win is better than focusing on other players. BECAUSE, believe it or not, the number of kills you get is meaningless if you did not play for the win. I can easily get into my Repu, go to an airfield, and shut it down for 20+kills and 0 deaths.......and lose every single last game. It is not only about the amount of kills you get its what you kill and when (where) you kill it that counts. The motivation comes in when you realize that you CAN influence the game strongly by playing it how it's meant to be played. The tactics of 1.9 are gone for carrying the win. New combo can be used in flights. You would be amazed what a high-tier GAA and a Multi-role can do now. Killing large numbers of bots is fun and all but its not how you win.

 

I shan't venture into making claims about lokid_1.

 

However, in my experience of 2.0, I have found your words ring true. Finding effective tactics lies in understanding what the best approach to the unfolding situation is given the plane you are flying: sometimes it is appropriate to pursue a killing spree above an airfield to secure a victory, sometimes it is better to work with team (bots or otherwise) to sweep from ground attack of one valuable capture point to the next. Understanding the appropriate approach does seem to be key to influencing the outcome of battles.


Edited by Franco_Scala, 14 January 2018 - 06:17 AM.


lokid_1 #768 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:08 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View PostFranco_Scala, on 14 January 2018 - 07:02 AM, said:

 

​Hello Lokid_1

 

I didn't miss the point, you didn't make it. You originally raised it as an issue of balance.

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 

​However, if that is your point, I can understand why 2.0 is frustrating for you in comparison to 1.9; 2.0 certainly does haven arcade feel to it which seems to divide opinion. Please don't SHOUT at me as if I'm an idiot in your way.

 

​Thanks and best wishes to you.

 

 

 

Yes bro, you missed the point:

 

"You missed the point bro. Pierre Closterman was top French ACE during WWII with 33 victories during whole war.

 

36 kills in one battle? And you lose the game because countless numbers of red planes pops up all around you and you can not move to another sector to capture it, as YOU HAVE TO CAPTURE IT TO WIN THE GAME!

 

Where is the FOCUS, where is the TACTICS?

 

This is SPACE INVADERS type of game now."

 

As you can see there is not the point to shoot down millions of planes. I was prevented to move on to the next sector to win, as you can see up here in the previous post. For me, the point is to win, not to have pain in arms and fingers of pushing buttons killing red planes.

 

Best wishes to you. You are the example how two people can disagree and still have a normal communication.



lokid_1 #769 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:17 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View Postwaxx25, on 14 January 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

 

I faced you before lokid. I remembered you from the forums at the time. You for some reason wanted me and only me, i killed you 4 times wondering why you lost on purpose. Do try to remember that focusing on the win is better than focusing on other players. BECAUSE, believe it or not, the number of kills you get is meaningless if you did not play for the win. I can easily get into my Repu, go to an airfield, and shut it down for 20+kills and 0 deaths.......and lose every single last game. It is not only about the amount of kills you get its what you kill and when (where) you kill it that counts. The motivation comes in when you realize that you CAN influence the game strongly by playing it how it's meant to be played. The tactics of 1.9 are gone for carrying the win. New combo can be used in flights. You would be amazed what a high-tier GAA and a Multi-role can do now. Killing large numbers of bots is fun and all but its not how you win.

 

Yes waxx we met before in the forum, we met afterwards in version 2.0, but we never met before in version 1.9.

 

Yes, you shoot me down, let it be, 4 times, as you had Repu, I was with less maneuverable plane, and you are a good player, you knew how to take the advantage of your plane.

 

But, the difference between you and Franco Scala is in your behavior, in spitting on players who have different opinion, who disagree with you but still have the highest level of communication, giving arguments, not spitting on you.

 

And yes, in a battle, I always concentrate on humans first, bots are a light meal afterwards.



lokid_1 #770 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:18 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

Something went wrong in upper post, I will try to fix it.

 



lokid_1 #771 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:38 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

Sorry, something went wrong with previous post.

 

"Best wishes to you. You are the example how two people can disagree and still have a normal communication."

 

Those are words for Franco Scala and he deserves them although we disagree in a view of WOWP 1.9/2.0 versions.

 

The difference between you and him is that you posted in a way targeted on insulting people having different opinion and giving arguments rather than hard words.



omglaserspewpew #772 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:40 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1724 battles
  • 1,132
  • [3VS27] 3VS27
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postwaxx25, on 13 January 2018 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

1.9 was terrible because certain class of planes was overpowered, game mechanics preffered players with the planes not the skills.

2.0 is "better" because it ... balances each plane against all others. ... time is spent fighting not waiting for next match and climbing to 4km for the first 3 minutes.

 

I will not go into other discussion, but what waxx wrote here is completely false and reeks of lack of knowledge about 1.9.

 

Game balance right now is a lot worse than it was in 1.9. The 2.0 version prefers planes over skill, because some lines or planes are so grossly overpowered it's not even funny. To think that 2.0 fixed imbalances in any respect is completely delusional. It removed BnZ cheesing, true, but introduced a myriad of other broken things. I'm absolutely sure that statpadders now mostly cheese pancakes and Spits just because they randomly put their finger on them, not because of some other reasons, eh? In 1.9, I could press Battle in 90% of my planes, knowing that no matter who I meet on the enemy team, I will have a chance of overcoming them somehow. In 2.0, half of the planes in tech trees only work if you have apes on the other team, because you get crapped upon by any competent enemy. 2.0 prefers players with planes, not skills, not vice-versa!

 

Secondly - to say that skill is now more important is ridiculous. The game has been dumbed down and even devs themself have openly stated on many occasions that a single particular players' skill should have less of an impact in 2.0! Jesus Christ, you have it stated on the dev blog!? Game required more skill in 1.9, which was exactly the problem it had, because said skill requirements made it hard for new people to join.

 

And third thing, climbing to 4km for 3 minutes might be stuff from WT, but not WoWp 1.9. I even made tests that show that time to first engagement in 2.0 is about 10-15 seconds faster than in 1.9. 10-15 seconds, waxx, not 3 minutes. You climb about 5 seconds less now at the start than you did in 1.9, nothing more.

 

 



Franco_Scala #773 Posted 14 January 2018 - 07:51 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

Hello lokid_1

 

I think I better understand your point now. Thankyou.

 

...and yes, it is possible to disagree with each other but still communicate and try to find common ground. Thankyou for your kind words.



AlmaxGeddon #774 Posted 14 January 2018 - 09:48 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 3031 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 08:08 AM, said:

 

"You missed the point bro. Pierre Closterman was top French ACE during WWII with 33 victories during whole war.

 

36 kills in one battle? And you lose the game because countless numbers of red planes pops up all around you and you can not move to another sector to capture it, as YOU HAVE TO CAPTURE IT TO WIN THE GAME!

.....

 

the German aces knocked down hundreds of planes .. but they lost .. because thousands of planes pops around ..!

 

it's not just winning or losing,

if I make a good match I'm happy, if I reach the first class or some important decoration I'm happy the same , I do not care to win or lose .. this is one of the best things about WOWP, you can play and make a great result even if you lose, realistic and fun!

:great:

 

knocking them all down and winning is space invader!

:playing:



lokid_1 #775 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:03 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

And, yes, I first concentrate on humans in a battle, as it is easier to win when you eliminate them, do not say you do not think so?

I have not met you in 1.9 though. Did you play 1.9 at all?



jakub_czyli_ja #776 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:10 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2393 battles
  • 9,339
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postomglaserspewpew, on 14 January 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

And third thing, climbing to 4km for 3 minutes might be stuff from WT, but not WoWp 1.9. I even made tests that show that time to first engagement in 2.0 is about 10-15 seconds faster than in 1.9. 10-15 seconds, waxx, not 3 minutes. You climb about 5 seconds less now at the start than you did in 1.9, nothing more.
Which engagement did you count - with enemy - red team, or any engagement?

AlmaxGeddon #777 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:26 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 3031 battles
  • 88
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

I have not met you in 1.9 though. Did you play 1.9 at all?

 

I had tried it, but I did not like it, at the time I preferred WOT.

 

I came back to try the bombers .. and I fell in love with this game!

And one of the reasons is just because it does not matter if you win or lose, but you can always do a great game.

I always enjoy every game played.

 

and I'm sorry, I understand who regrets a game that he liked, it's a situation that has happened to me too .. it's bad, I understand it.
But I find it useless to continue discussing 1.9, it was another game
from how much I read from the veterans..


..and sometimes, it is also done in bad faith, by those who want to bring players on other games..

I find this disgusting (it's not your case)



lokid_1 #778 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2986 battles
  • 105
  • [DITO] DITO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View PostAlmaxGeddon, on 14 January 2018 - 11:26 AM, said:

 

I had tried it, but I did not like it, at the time I preferred WOT.

 

I came back to try the bombers .. and I fell in love with this game!

And one of the reasons is just because it does not matter if you win or lose, but you can always do a great game.

I always enjoy every game played.

 

and I'm sorry, I understand who regrets a game that he liked, it's a situation that has happened to me too .. it's bad, I understand it.
But I find it useless to continue discussing 1.9, it was another game
from how much I read from the veterans..


..and sometimes, it is also done in bad faith, by those who want to bring players on other games..

I find this disgusting (it's not your case)

 

Good my friend...but the question was not for you.

 

I understand people who like new game (V2.0).

 

I do not understand people insulting other who does not like it. And it is not just the question whether you like it or not.  The question is about achieving the goal (more players). Have they achieved it?

Many people prove they did not.

And secondly, (see my previous post), there are simply too many problems with stability of the game, for instance.



waxx25 #779 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:40 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1834 battles
  • 156
  • [-DFA-] -DFA-
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:

And, yes, I first concentrate on humans in a battle, as it is easier to win when you eliminate them, do not say you do not think so?

I have not met you in 1.9 though. Did you play 1.9 at all?

 

There are games where focusing enemy player is needed (looking at you high tier GAA) otherwise no not really.

Franco_Scala #780 Posted 14 January 2018 - 10:43 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2343 battles
  • 355
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

 

Good my friend...but the question was not for you.

 

I understand people who like new game (V2.0).

 

I do not understand people insulting other who does not like it. And it is not just the question whether you like it or not.  The question is about achieving the goal (more players). Have they achieved it?

Many people prove they did not.

And secondly, (see my previous post), there are simply too many problems with stability of the game, for instance.

 

​Indeed, regardless of what further changes they make over the year it will all be for naught if people are still getting severe crashes and game breaking bugs.

 

I've lost count of the number of times team mates have been throwing insults at their team as a loss approaches, blindly raging unawares that all the other human players have been disconnected due to server boot or client crash.

 

I suspect that many new players, even the ones who really enjoy 2.0 in it's current state, will be put off playing and grinding any further if their games are totally ruined by tech issues.






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users